Amazon requires services on Fire TV to give it 30% of ad impressions or revenue

Point #1: This bait-and-switch tactic shouldn&#x27;t be allowed by consumer regulations (Not in the US, but here in Brazil it would be a no-no) as in the end Amazon is tricking it&#x27;s use base into paying for the Fire TV as a great deal, when in the end they will pay more for streaming as those costs that Amazon is putting on the streaming services will be paid by them in the end.<p>#2 Wouldn&#x27;t this movement be (potentially) a great chance for Plex to better position itself in the legal side of streaming? Because by offering a free hub for streaming (even licensing it for hardware sellers like Dlink and others, like Boxee once did) might generate a good revenue stream for them...until somebody buys the whole team (I miss you Boxee!)

The trickle down effects of Apple being a $3T corporation that is widely beloved and did it all on the back of a fiercely guarded walled garden.

I have 7 HDMI slots on my TV, ready for Peacock Stick, Hulu Disney Plus stick, Netflix Stick, Paramount Plus stick, Max Hub etc etc<p>Not more than seven though mmmkay?

Well, the article says, Amazon already charges this wherever Amazon Publishing Services is available. The change is to extend this charge to places where Amazon Publishing Services isn&#x27;t available. Then the article provides some background info about how Amazon Fire works economically. So, basically, not much new here.

Roku does the same. At this point I would be surprised if any box or TV isn&#x27;t taking 30%.

Every streaming device manufacturer does this. Roku demands a revenue cut if you want your app on Roku devices, last time I paid for something Amazon Video on my Apple TV Apple forced the transaction to go through Apple Pay and presumably took their cut there.<p>It’s the standard business model in this market: sell a streaming device at or below cost and then turn to the streaming services &amp; tell them that if they want access to the XX million people who own your device they’re going to have to pay up. 30% seems to be the going rate.

Low cost computer, free software updates, backend infrastructure, several years of functional life, for $40 in sales (is there any profit there?). Exactly how is it surprising that they need to make some sort of additional revenue via kickback?

Hey people. Did we forget that everyone has access to the internet? It&#x27;s not like a physical store!!

At what point does a streaming service build an installer that walks you through turning on ADB and push the app over network ADB and just distribute outside Amazon (and Google)?<p>(Sure, this is a lot of effort, but <i>someone</i> might go for the ol&#x27; sideload gag.)

FireTV is a roughly a quarter of the OTT market in the US. Content providers could likely boycott the platform and survive if they got together and collectively stood against it.

I find it amusing that television makers haven&#x27;t started demanding a share of revenue on TV shows that have ads that they display. &#x2F;s

Time to pay the rent for the stuff you thought you owned.<p>Closed ecosystems and walled gardens have all the charm of dental surgery these days but there are <i>all the users</i>.<p>This is why we need more open standards. Open standards mean open competition and helps reduce monopolies.

Cory Doctorow has been writing about this lately. It seems we are heading back to the economic system that preceded capitalism in Europe: feudalism, where almost all of the gains were taken by rentiers: people who made money based on what they own (land, exclusive rights from the king, etc). Want to sell an app? Pay 30% to the landlord, but only if what you want to sell doesn&#x27;t conflict with their business model.

So all this only works if the consumers can not switch back en mass to piracy. Its sort of implicit. Either free computing dies or these companies.

App availabilty will be the replacement for carriage fights we see for sat&#x2F;cable. Soon you will need multiple devices to have all services.

A-priori, is there any explanation for a platform charging 30% other than monopoly? Imagine if a grocery store charged 30% for slotting fees?

Lmao what a joke. Imagine if Mozilla said that they should get 30% of every ad that was viewed within&#x2F;using Firefox.

This is going to end well.

intel and AMD : wait maybe we can do that on our hardware too?

advertisements are saturating everything, and I think chat gpt is replacing google largely due to this, avoiding quora and blogspam

That&#x27;s substantially more than many countries charge Corporation Tax on profits.